Leaderboard

When the hoaxer compensates for all the time and money they deliberately cost these people, then they can start making trivial comparisons. To justify it otherwise is selfish and self-serving.

Tontar won't even answer the question of his involvement- neither here nor on the JREF. It doesn't sound like he's the kind of person who can tell a lie so he's just keeping quiet and dancing around the issue. If he can't do it on an internet forum then I doubt he would deny his involvement under oath. Perez seems to be rediculously confident about his claim, and it's getting more and more evident as to why. Tontar called it a "witch hunt", you call it a "lynch mob", I don't see it as being any different than what people have done in the past for outing a hoaxer. This is tame in comparison.

The "armchair researcher" could be compared to the "Monday morning quarterback" or the "back seat driver", and the phrase is often used in a disparaging way. But research takes on many forms and each is actually of potential value in an investigation searching for a truthful understanding. As the suspected bigfoot species lives outdoors in the field, field research is the primary way data is gathered for analysis, and the field work does entail a lot of physical and dedicated effort. People (such as myself) who deal more in image analysis do tend to spnd a lot of time in armchars, but still do real research and analysis, and by gathering an scanning film footage, can bring new data to the table. People who engage in scientific testing (whether it's building and testing costumes, or testing how earth substrates affect plaster cast footprints, or any other physical activities that test physical issues related to the overall phenomenon) may be doing lab research and that might be thought of as different from field research, but it is active research none the less. Finally, people who properly peer review the analysis of others can provide valuable insight and make a valued contribution to the field, and internet researchers who research things like historical incidents and newspaper reports of olden days do also help bring worthy data to the table. But the term "armchair researcher" seems to have come to be widely used to characterize a person who makes no constructive contribution, and simply seeks to disparage the efforts of others. The simplest test of whether the person's efforts are constructive or obstructive, valued or wasteful, lies in the consideration of whether they help clear up the many controversies and conflicts of the phenomenon, or do they just try and tear down the efforts of others. Bill

Sued for what?Are those that spent time, money, and effort investigating the Elbe trackway due reimbursement? The answer to that is "yes." Will Tontar provide the funding? Won't hold my breath. Sad that someone would waste the time and money of earnest, honest individuals seeking to help provide answers to those of us curious enough to actively participate in this forum and other bigfoot activities. A pox upon his house.

Tontar: "Mr. Lawyer - a guy that writes a Bigfoot Newsletter says I hoaxed a trackway, I want to sue him" Lawyer: "I'm sorry, I can't sue people for accusations of association with mythical beasts". Isn't that the same arguement about why there could be no fraud case?

Honestly I think what you've seen is the acknowledgement that there is no way to control the actions of the other 5 billion+ people who inhabit the earth and the realization that the knowledge to rule out hoaxes is much more important than the hoaxer's identity. From what I've seen in the same places AND the Bigfoot Times is an understanding that most researchers are woefully unprepared to combat hoaxing. I think the most telling quotes from Perez's article were "...and based on the need to be first at bat on the internet, it is also well documented that many can't-fool-me Bigfooters were taken in by the Elbe tracks" and "With so many investigators being fooled by deliberately faked Bigfoot tracks, one must openly wonder how skilled Bigfooters are in spotting a wooden nickel". I wonder if those who worry more about the "who" of a hoax aren't doing a disservice to this community by failing to focus on what's actually more important and whether or not they can change to better this community?

This is a Bigfoot discussion board. JohnC, you're entitled to your opinion. However, it's not a "Discuss evidence in the manner that meets JohnC's approval" board. Do you seriously expect everyone to tow the line you feel is appropriate? Our membership is quite diverse, from hardcore skeptics to people that believe that Bigfoot is living in their doghouse. Also, we are not a research forum, we're a Bigfoot discussion board. Read the forum rules and you'll see that stated right upfront. I appreciate your suggestion that we consider the direction we're heading in, but what you fail to understand is that we cannot discern what is truth or hoax, nor can we limit the right of those that bother you just because you don't like it. That's not discussion, that's a limitation of our membership's point of view. We merely provide a place for discussion. It's the membership that that reads the claims, weighs the evidence and determines what to believe or if its truth or hoax. Our role is to provide an avenue for those interested in Bigfoot to share what they wish. If they choose to share the fact that they don't believe evidence presented, fine. If they choose to believe everything hook, line and sinker, that's fine, too. If individual researchers choose to withhold their evidence, what are we supposed to do about it? Really, what can we do about it? All are free to discuss what they wish - or to not present evidence as they wish - as long as they post according to the forum's rules and guidelines. If you'll read those rules and guidelines, you'll see nothing concerning us dictating the direction of the discussion, only the format. As far as you not wanting to pay to join the Premium Access, that's your choice. Nobody requires you to do so, although you're missing out on a great addition to the existing forum. Since you're not a member, you have no clue what goes on in The Tar Pit. You make it out to be what you think it's like, not what you know it's like. Isn't that hoaxing evidence in a way? What is your motivation to hoax? You've made statements about something you're not qualified to discuss, in my opinion. Yet in fairness, the BFF allows you to discuss your opinion according to the rules. How much more fair and impartial can we be? Do you want us to consider what direction we're heading in when it comes to what you want to post, or just what others post? Luckily for you, we allow all opinions. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's just the way it goes here.